man’s values and ideologies as a basis of gamification · 2017-02-27 · literature on this...

CORRESPONDENCE Vladimir Dmitrievich Emel'yanenko Email: [email protected]

© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) apply. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes.

Introduction

At present our information society is quickly developing and the research

into the efficiency of using computer games in education taking into

consideration the degree of development and characteristics of young people’s

KEYWORDS ARTICLE HISTORY gamification, using games for learning, ideology, values and ideologies as a basis of gamification.

Received 23 August 2016 Revised 24 September 2016

Accepted 29 September 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION

2016, VOL. 11, NO. 18, 12576-12592

Man’s Values and Ideologies as a Basis of Gamification

Vladimir Dmitrievich Emel'yanenkoa, Aleksandr Nikolaevich Vetoshkoa, Sergey Grigorievich Malinnikova, Irina Vladimirovna

Malashenkoa, Lyubov Ivanovna Vetoshkob

a Bryansk State University, RUSSIA, b Moscow State University of Railway Engineering, RUSSIA

ABSTRACT Gamification is becoming more and more popular in education. The consequences of the use of

games for learning are not sufficiently investigated yet, although it is known that using games for

learning does not always have a beneficial effect on students. Besides, practical rather than

theoretical problems related to use of gamification in education have been more the focus of

research by now. It is therefore desirable to consider at the theoretical level the role of game

technologies in education taking into account the systemic nature of man’s spiritual life and values

and ideologies as its constituent parts. The research aim is to determine the degree of applicability

of gamification in education determined by a specific system of values and ideologies every

participant of educational process has. To achieve this goal, secondary analysis of scientific

literature on this problem was applied, main approaches to gamification were singled out and

evaluated. Secondly, using systematic approach it is shown that the nature of the impact of

gamification depends on the level and character of the development of a person’s values and

ideologies. The research employs basic scientific and special scientific methods typical of social

and humanitarian studies. At the same time, the important role among them is played by the

system analysis method that allows us to consider the use of games for learning in educational not

in isolation but taking into account the role of basic factors of a person’s spiritual life, especially

his world outlook. This allows for a many-sided analysis of causes of difficulties which appear when

using games for learning. The novelty of this research lies in showing the dependence of the

character and results of gamification on man’s values and ideologies.

OPEN ACCESS

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 12577

spiritual world has acquired vital importance. Gamification (using games for

learning) has become one of the urgent research problems recently. There have

been published a number of articles dealing with prospects of using gamification

in education, the authors of which explain the necessity of using games for

learning and develop different forms of using gamification in teaching

(Deterding,et. al. 2011; McGonigal 2011; Werbach, n. d.; Mazelis 2013).

However, some researchers are critical about gamification and doubt its value as

a modern tendency in education (Cluev, n. d.; Grechkina and Bogatyreva 2016;

Chetverikova, n. d.). At the same time, many of the professionals in general

support gamification as a modern educational tendency and try to examine and

assess specific forms of its application, to determine the extent of its

applicability in different areas of education (Zichermann and Linder 2012;

Herger 2012; Eliseeva, et. al. 2015). On the other hand, many scientists admit a

complex character of the influence of computer games on man, and thus suppose

that gamification in education can have both beneficial and detrimental effects

(Lee and Hammer 2011; Alchebaev and Gaidukov 2014; Gabdulakhov and

Galimova 2014). So, it is necessary to research into the reasons for the complex

impact of computer games on man in the educational process taking into account

the systemic character of his spiritual world and the presence in it of certain

values and ideologies.

The aim of the given research is to study the application of computer games

in education taking into consideration its dependence on values and ideologies of

learners. To achieve this goal, we carried out analysis of modern scientific

literature on the problem of gamification in education, main approaches to

gamification are singled out and evaluated. Secondly, in the framework of the

systematic approach, we demonstrate that the character and degree of

successful impact of computer games on achieving educational goals depend on

the level and specificity of the development of values and ideologies of

schoolchildren / students.

The research employs basic scientific and special scientific methods typical

of social and humanitarian studies. At the same time, the important role among

them is played by the system analysis method that allows us to consider the use

of games for learning in educational not in isolation but taking into account the

role of basic factors of a person’s spiritual life, especially world outlook. This lets

us define conditions for the most successful use of games in modern education

and single out ways of avoiding possible negative consequences when using

games in education very frequently. The novelty of this research consists in

showing the dependence of the character and results of gamification on man’s

values and ideologies.

Gamification problem in research literature

The notion of “gamification” was first used as a scientific term in 2011 by a

group of researchers (Deterding, et. al. 2011; Deterding 2011). However, the use

of games in education had been discussed long before computer games appeared

(Avedon and Sutton 1971). Mark J. Nelson speaks about games used in

education in the USSR (in the 20th century) and the USA (the beginning of the

21st century) which were the precursors of gamification (Nelson 2012). Gabe

Zichermann considers that gamification is a new discipline possessing a huge

potential but in need of “systematic research” (Zichermann and Linder 2012;

12578 EMEL'YANENKO ET AL.

Gamification: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 2015). There

are solid researches into the essence and distinctive features of gamification

(McGonigal 2011; Herger 2012). For instance, Lee Sheldon puts forward the

conception of transforming a lesson into a game (Lee 2012). However, too little

time has passed since the beginning of the study of the problem; besides, these

are practical, not theoretical aspects of using gamification in education that

were the main focus of research. Therefore it is necessary to give theoretical

generalizations of the research results.

One of the reasons why using games for learning is an urgent problem at

present is new educational needs, for example, “the game culture” has acquired

a mass character. It is believed that the introduction of gamification is

conditioned by society's transition into a new "professional era" when every

worker becomes “a man playing games” aiming to achieve in "the system of

gaming strategies" (a virtual map of a company and role-plays, a personal profile

and levels) certain professional heights and statuses (Trends of the Future:

distributed robot production, gamification, sport Internet). Gamification is the

application of techniques typical of computer games in non-game contexts

(involving users and consumers, enhancing their engagement in solving applied

problems) (Gartner 2015). Nowadays gamification is used in personnel

management, innovation management, marketing and personal financing

planning. The American research and advisory firm Gartner, Inc. believes that

one of the "objects to implement gamification" is "globalization of advanced

education" (Burke 2012). The prevailing opinion now is that in education

gamification can be used in many processes - from paper work to meta-games

within an institution (Kubekov, et. al. 2015, p. 75). It enhances students'

motivation to acquire new knowledge, professional skills (such as critical

thinking and decision-making abilities), reveals creative potential and is "an

effective means of improving vocational education at universities" (Eliseeva, et.

al. 2015, p.70).

According to K.Werbach, gamification is a solution of real-life problems

which are not directly related to games with the help of game-designed elements

and techniques (e.g., acquiring new knowledge and skills) (Werbach, n. d.). The

basis of gamification is a simulation process of putting people in situations

“which imitate real life” with the purpose of training or assessment. The

educational simulation is a scenario with a system of rules and strategies

created with the purpose of "forming competences that can be transferred and

used in real life" (Plyusnina, n. d.). The typical feature of gamification is the use

of the game not only as an element of educational process but also as a form of

its organization "when learning a discipline acquires the features and character

of a game" (Diakonov 2016, p. 144). Gamification can be carried out on the basis

of online learning platforms Goalbook and Course Hero, virtual simulators

“serious games” (recreating real processes and teachers), Game Code School

projects (teaching programming skills with game elements), Motion Math

Games (mobile mathematics games) and many others (Nitsa 2012). D.Hunter

teaches Geography using instead of a textbook a game about a zombie (Werbach

and Hunter 2012). According to A.Mazelis, the basic principle of gamification is

to ensure a constant and measurable feedback from the user providing the

possibility of "dynamic adjustment of the user’s behavior" (Mazelis, 2013, p.4).

Game elements of gamification include scoring and achievement counting, levels

of difficulties and skills, leader-boards and ratings, indicators of successful


performance and rewards (Salin, n. d.). The positive aspects of gamification are

students’ increased motivation and better learning of the material while using

the same teaching forms but filling them with new contents in accordance with

the specificity of a subject / discipline (Muratova and Muratova 2015, p. 42).

Using training games creates a really good basis for students’ self-development

(Polutina 2010, p. 94). It is also noted that gamification motivates our modern

generation which is keen on playing various games for their future professional

activities, helps them to become absorbed into educational tasks and goals,

contributes to "forming values of man’s professional fulfillment" (Eliseeva, et. al.

2015, p.59). Some authors believe that it creates a joyful and happy emotional

background which helps to overcome problems without getting stressed

(Vorobyev 2015). It is stated that students’ motivation is to grow "with the

increasing use of gamification" (Demchenko 2016, p. 57). O.V.Orlova considers

that “inherent mechanisms of gamification allow us to make a child very active”

(Orlova and Titova 2015, p. 62). Other advantages of this method are also

pointed out - increased motivation for self-education, obtaining professional

skills, revealing creative potential, forming critical thinking, decision-making

and team-working abilities (Shirshova, n. d.). It is believed that people who are

keen on computer games have a mind different from those who do not play

computer games because they have "well-developed logical thinking, emotional

stability, dominance and rationality" (Polyakova and Kozlov 2015, p. 516). Dian

Schaffhauser points out that the use of a game environment helps to bond

together a student’s experience and learning, to stimulate the competitive spirit

and healthy competition, to encourage teamwork, to form system thinking (as a

well-designed game contributes to better understanding relations within and

between components of the material under study) (Schaffhauser 2014).

However, some researchers point out some disadvantages of using games in

education. D.Klyuev believes that "gamification techniques are limited. At best,

it creates only a temporary motivation", but its transformation into long-term

behavior changes is difficult (Cluev, n. d.). According to V.F.Gabdulkhakova,

"the efficiency of electronic educational resources is obviously inferior to

traditional educational methods". They are likely an addition to traditional

forms of teaching. Digital pedagogy should be based on "humanitarian ideas" of

education and IT developers should always be aware of their possible negative

impact on man (Gabdulakhov and Galimova 2014, p.42). Some researchers even

consider gamification as a result of certain "machinations of enemies" of our

country and national education (Grechkina and Bogatyreva 2016; Chetverikova,

n. d.).

The analysis of special literature shows that the majority of researchers

hold a positive opinion about gamification as a modern tendency in education

and support wide use of games for learning. But they almost neglect such

important issues as the impact of social conditions on gamification and the

impact of gamification on man’s spiritual world. For example, some scholars

believe that for using gamification only two conditions are necessary, i.e. access

to modern computers and software and a teacher’s proper training. It is assumed

that children are fully prepared for learning any material if taught by using

games (Borzenko 2016, p. 81). Thus it is logical to consider the use of games in

education in a wider social and philosophical context, to study this problem

taking into consideration the fact that man's consciousness is complex, multi-

level and systemic by nature. The specificity of the spiritual world of every


single person is also important, i.e. the most important beliefs and ideals, values

and principles which make up his personality. Only in this case you can more

precisely figure out limitations of using games in teaching this or that student /

student group. Conclusions that gamification could solve all educational

problems or that it is dangerous for man’s spiritual world are unreasonable and

ungrounded.

Theoretical background. Gamification in the context of man’s values

and motivations as elements of his spiritual world

To theoretically prove the worth of using gamification in education the

structure of man’s spiritual world should be considered, namely, man’s world

outlook which is its core element, i.e. a system of knowledge and beliefs,

principles and ideals that define man’s attitude to the world and help to find

answers to important questions in life. It is the most stable form of human

spiritual existence. To a great extent, due to world outlook man exists as a

personality and has a system of values which control his choice of physical and

intellectual activities. Values and ideologies are formed in man since childhood

under the influence of social conditions, first of all, influenced by the way of

communicating with parents and other people. Thus, it is important to form in

children certain values and ideologies so as to define the main ways of their

further development. Willingly or unwillingly man evaluates any information

relying on his ideological beliefs and principles. The character of man's attitude

to games is also determined, first of all, by world outlook. Using this approach, it

is poor development of a learner’s values and ideologies, instability of beliefs,

principles and ideals which are a serious obstacle for successful use of

gamification. When using gamification certain characteristics of instrumental

thinking can be developed well enough because a learner who plays games

trains skills of performing certain activities. However, if as a result a skill is

formed to do something simply faster or better, it does not guarantee that a

learner will perform an activity well unless he develops those values and

ideologies which determine his choices in life. Teaching using gamification does

not always have a positive result if a learner’s world outlook remains

undeveloped.

One of the problems of gamification is to theoretically prove the possibility

and necessity of its use in education because originally it was meant for business

(Duggan and Shoup 2013). It is considered that gamification principles are

applicable in any sphere - innovation, technology development, teaming and

motivating people, and, consequently, in education. For example, some authors

speak about their successful application in business education at the

Washington University (Gabitova and Frolova 2014, p. 252). However, the

educational sphere has its own specifics that should be taken into account. For

example, game elements are used in controlling behavior, promoting healthy

lifestyle and financing. At the same time, their impact on behavior, propaganda,

economic incentives can affect people so much that care should be taken how to

use them precisely in education. Therefore, when transferring game forms from

different areas into education it is necessary to rethink their theoretical basis

adapting them to education and test them in practice.

One of the arguments in favor of gamification is its economic efficiency. An

educational institution is viewed as a seller and a student as a buyer. For

example, as games satisfy our emotional need, "emotions can be sold now" and


"we follow this tendency" (Gorshenin, et. al. 2015, p. 91). So, a student can be

viewed as a customer and the education system should follow his needs (proceed

from his motivations) (Kubekov, et. al. 2015, p. 75). However, the choice of a

student as a consumer may not coincide with society’s interests. And it may be

contrary to the interests of a student because not always can he understand

them correctly. For example, his level of development of values and world

outlook can be such that he is unaware of any usefulness of forming certain

educational competencies and he wishes to play games (if offered) to get a formal

certificate of education at the end. According to some researchers, the fact that

lessons which bring joy make students more motivated and active than routine

lessons speaks in favor of gamification (Kubekov, et. al. 2015, p.76). Indeed, it is

possible to use man’s desire for pleasure to stimulate his motivation. However,

the purpose of education is to give knowledge, skills and competences, but not

having fun. Therefore, if a student or a schoolchild does not feel the need to

develop certain educational competencies, this motivation would be rather

formed for playing games but not for learning.

There is another approach to "economically" prove the efficiency of

gamification in education. According to E. D. Matveeva, gamification (as a

business concept) combines elements of loyalty programs, behavioral economics

and game mechanisms thanks to which it is possible to reduce costs, to involve

participants in various activities (education included), to get them interested

and to manage them (Matveeva 2015, p. 44). In this case we speak of an active

influence on a person with the purpose of changing his spiritual world. This

approach differs but little from traditional educational methods and when using

it, it would be more difficult to make students active. In addition to it, the

inherent property of gamification, i.e. optionality which "will motivate students",

will be lost (Matveeva 2015, p.45).

In our opinion, only those students / school-children will have motivation

who have appropriate and well-developed values and ideologies and a strong

belief in the necessity of acquiring educational competencies. Another proof that

gamification is useful, and the one with which many researchers agree, is its

function of ensuring teamwork. Games teach us to be team-wise and with their

help students are better involved in learning (Karpenkova 2015, p. 562). At the

same time, students’ joining in a team (and their collective interests and goals)

must be properly combined with many individual forms of reporting and

responsibilities necessary when using games.

One of the arguments in favor of gamification is a reference to the fact that

traditional teaching (viewed as the transmission of knowledge by teacher to

students) in the information society has become outdated (Kapustina 2015, p.

561). According to E.V.Kapustina, it is due to the peculiarities of children of

"Generation Z” who perform actions, and learning is among them, only which

are interesting and meaningful for them. The new generation is characterized by

a short-term memory, they remember not the information itself but first of all its

location, ways and means of information retrieval; by multitasking, decreased

concentration, as well as "clip thinking" (Kapustina 2015, p. 48). However, in our

opinion, it only makes more urgent the issue of forming motivation to learn

when education is viewed as a real value. To form this motivation one should

develop a child’s personality and create social conditions that will awake interest

in education.


Scientists are not unanimous yet regarding a possible decrease in learning

efficiency under multitasking. Thus, G.Small and G.Vorgan assume “effective

multitasking” can be formed (Small and Vorgan 2011, p. 122). M.Chorost

(Chorost 2011, p.239) and M. Jackson (Jackson 2009, p. 80) believe that a

thoughtful man who can focus on one problem will always achieve the best

result. The both sides can be right in their own way. A man with well-developed

values and ideologies is capable, if necessary, both to focus on one problem, and

at the same time to consider a whole range of issues.

T.V.Semenovskikh points out that "clip thinking" is illogical, with "high

speed of switching between parts, pieces of information", it lacks a view of the

world as a whole. This way of thinking cannot be called degradation but it is just

the development of "some cognitive skills at the expense of others", so it has

some positive features which can be exploited when using gamification in

education. Any material should be offered in forms that appeal to this way of

thinking so as to arouse students’ interest (Semenovskikh n. d.). It is assumed

that when teaching students who possess "clip thinking”, the usage of

simulation games can be more effective compared to traditional methods

(Korobanova, et.al. 2014, p.127). However, even if the latter opinion is true, it

does not mean that you need to rely only on this thinking without developing

students’ ability to abstract-logical thinking; as abstract-logical thinking is an

important trait not only of a present-day university graduate, but of any average

educated man.

"Clip culture" is known to be based on "flashing of segments of information"

and "clip thinking" involves simplification (Frumkin 2010, p. 28). It reduces

“proper material absorption, reduces capacity for analysis and building long

logical chains". However, the main advantage of “clip thinking” is high speed of

information processing (Frumkin 2010, p. 29). “Clip thinking" is really a kind of

protection from excessive information, but this is a way of adaptation,

simplification. However, another direction of man’s development is also possible

– his development as a personality with firm beliefs, ideals and principles

helping to deeply understand information. Zh.V.Korobanova believes that as

man now faces so much information, "one of the main criteria when selecting its

source is time" (Korobanova, et.al. 2014, p.129). In other words, the faster man

finds information on any issue, the better. We believe that it is not the speed of

finding information that is important, but its significance, adequacy and also the

possibility to verify it. Besides, man must have own values and world outlook,

which let correctly treat any information he receives. If he is bad at fact analysis

or cannot build correct logical chains, the speed with which he perceives

information will be useless in most cases.

Quick solution of problems can often be harmful from the point of view of

the strategies used, as man can be wrong about evaluating his success (which is

“success” to his mind only). If man with the help of games manages to develop a

quick reaction when performing certain actions, but at the same time wrong life

values are formed (for example, the principles of indifference or immorality), it is

likely to result in problems in future. Life values that are more adequate in the

given society (e.g., social responsibility, importance of being an active member of

society) are likely to compensate for a slower reaction in situations requiring

quick actions and their less accurate performance (Emel’yanenko 2016, p. 56).

The way gamification influences a young man when learning to a great

extent depends on the development of his spiritual world. More stable (positive


for man and society’s keeping safe and developing) values and ideological

principles to a much greater extent give man a chance to benefit from games. On

the contrary, negative (or unstable) values and ideologies of teenagers and

young people (for example, the prevalence of immorality and indifference) may

reduce their motivation to learn. This, in its turn, can result in the fact that

gamification will rather make them game-addicted than motivated to learn.

B.P.Diakonov explains the introduction of gamification into education by

the fact that it makes teachers use a completely new approach of acquiring

knowledge – using games for learning. The traditional pedagogy, in his opinion,

had a “paved with pain” approach when a student took pains to learn something

new, he overcame many difficulties. Using game elements in education allows

students to be enthusiastic about learning, and game techniques can lead to

"minimizing negative connotations" associated with learning (Diakonov 2016, p.

144). T.Reiners and L.C.Wood believe that gamification allows students to

unconsciously overcome their "negative connotations" and education acquires

"many positive, funny elements typical of games" (Reiners and Wood 2015, p.

165). B.P.Diakonov also speaks about deep psychological rejection which is not a

rare case when people face the fact that learning involves "working hard at

something new and proving that you have learnt it". However, we think that

this circumstance does not mean that the education system should be based on

the "deep" (i.e. unconscious) level, as its main task is forming man’s reasonable

social motivation. Besides, everyone in his life, sooner or later, has to overcome

difficulties, and there are many things which he still has to do even if he has

some "negative connotations" about them.

Some authors believe that the development of game technology is contrary

to the traditional view that hard work, diligence and perseverance are important

to learn well, and that the time when students were forced to learn by fear of

punishment or poor grades has come into oblivion. Now you can learn by playing

a game – “without effort” (Diakonov 2016, p. 145; Gabitova and Frolova 2014,

p.253; Karpenkova 2015, p.562]. And the introduction of games can help to make

learning enjoyable, to make such a serious activity as learning easy

(Karpenkova 2015, p.563). But the less serious learning becomes, the less

responsibility students feel. Besides, positive emotions are not permanent, and

as motivation by games is superficial so gradually it is reduced. In the end,

having no other deeper motivation teachers will have to apply some new forms of

teaching. However, if schoolchildren and especially students have no ability to

do what they do not like, teachers cannot hope to achieve general success in

learning.

It should be noted that a number of features of the educational process

which is built on using games (the way some researchers describe it) are in fact

contrary to the idea of "learning without effort". Thus, game elements (points,

badges, levels and rewards) are used to assess students’ achievements and

engage them in competition. The rating system with its motivational part, rating

tables and available to parents and other schools’ representatives serves the

same purpose. Finally, in order to prevent any possible manipulation on the part

of teachers (to make their school higher in the ratings) there are elements of

control and even punishment (Matveeva 2015, p. 45). These peculiar features of

the game system seem unlikely to help learners and teachers to relax and

relieve stress (though it is one of the aims of gamification). One of the famous

statements by Joey J. Lee is worth paying attention to, namely he says that “you


can enjoy yourself getting scores but at the same time the game helps you to

understand better such abstract subjects as, for example, algebra” (Lee 2015).

The words “understand better” are very significant to our mind. In other words,

it is impossible to learn abstract subjects from scratch with the help of games.

Students first make efforts to understand complex phenomena (obviously,

guided by teachers). And only then, after acquiring necessary theory, games help

to better understand abstract things and to consolidate knowledge and skills.

You cannot master algebra with games only, but you can better understand

what you have already learnt about it. Similarly one can explain the example

given by Joey J. Lee about 3,500 Chinese students who learnt English better

(95% of their teachers admitted that their motivation increased!) when video

games were used. It is known that Chinese students are hard-working, focused

on really learning and getting decent education, so they already had a very good

motivation even before the start of the experiment. Video games made the

perception of information more interesting and the students (already motivated

to study well!) responded to it by absorbing information even better.

According to N.V.Karpenkova, using game forms will result in students’

being more open and free in the classroom and so "being more interested in

knowledge" (Karpenkova 2015, p.563). The popularity of computer games will

enhance efficiency of education because the game "involves and keeps students

interested" (Karpenkova 2015, p.563). However, if students have no motivation

to learn which depends on poor development of their values and world outlook,

they will be interested more not in knowledge but in the game itself as an

emotionally positive process. As a result, it is not efficiency of learning that can

increase but the popularity of games. Besides, as any activity forms can become

boring with time, it can also be doubtful that games can be successfully used to

involve students into learning for a long time.

Another argument in favor of gamification is the assumption that it will

make modern education less boring and will make the process of knowledge

acquiring more interesting (Gabitova and Frolova 2014, p.253; Karpenkova

2015, p. 563). However, in our opinion, the matter is not only in the

shortcomings of education (no one would deny that there are some) but also the

problem is to form a socially determined motivation to get real educational

competencies (which is conditioned by the state of modern education and its role

in society). In such circumstances a strange situation arises when the task is set

(not only for schoolchildren, but for students as well) not even to convince

students to take efforts to acquire certain competences but to teach them in such

a way so that the process of learning for them would be like playing a game.

One more argument in favor of gamification is that as children are the best

at playing games it should be the game to help them learn (Gabitova and

Frolova 2014, p. 252). This argument can be taken into account only if setting

reasonable limitations to game using (when they are applied to specific

schoolchildren / students with a certain level of intellectual development and in

specific social circumstances). Some researchers also believe that as the game

allows “to simulate any situation and scenarios" a student gets "huge

experience" within a very short time (Gabitova and Frolova 2014, p. 253). To

make the results of games remain in the memory of a student "as part of life

experience", it is necessary to use a very realistic and properly designed

simulator (Gabitova and Frolova 2014, p. 253). However, one should not forget

that first of all a game is not the same as real life, and a student acquires not


some practical real-life experience but game experience (which still needs to be

tested in real situations). Secondly, to assimilate any new experience man needs

a strong desire to do it (and this desire depends on the development of values

and ideologies).

Some researchers recognize the existence of certain problems when trying

to prove the efficiency of gamification. It is observed that it is methodologically

complex by nature, it requires much time on the part of a teacher and creating

learning resources is rather expensive (Semenovskikh, n. d.). There also can

appear "problems with motivating and involving students into learning" (Lee

and Hammer 2011). Rewards used in games are only an outward motivation

which disappears at once when the game is over, whereas inner motivation is

more important and more effective (Shirshova, n. d.; Karpenkova 2015, p.564).

Gamification is not suitable for all schoolchildren / students as some of them

"came here to get knowledge" and not to play games. Some teachers consider

games useless and even harmful. In addition to it, it is not always easy to

integrate games into the learning process. And finally, if an educational game is

not interesting and not optional, it can just irritate students (Kubekov, et. al.

2015, p. 77).

The economic reasoning why gamification should be used in education is

best known. Students are treated as consumers whose needs and preferences

should be taken into consideration. However, treating education as a service

only, when the motivation to get it must be ensured by any possible means,

entertainment included, is one-sided. Education is not only a service but also a

benefit having certain social value. It is natural that consuming such values in

form of personal benefits is regulated by society. Society can set such complex

tasks for education the essence of which is hard for a student to understand

because the system of his values may be not properly developed yet. In this case,

planning his strategies a teacher must proceed from both the real state of the

development of student’s spiritual world and from personal development

prospects conditioned by social standards.

The economic reasoning of using gamification explains the appearance of an

argument in favor of games based on the peculiarities of modern youths’

thinking process. According to some scholars "clip perception” of information

results in the fact that games are the best means to increase their motivation to

learn. If to treat a student as a consumer it is natural that such opinions should

appear that gamification makes learning easy and optional, removes stress and

reduces tension, causes joy and interest (and even helps to overcome the "paved

with pain” approach typical of former education). It is good when knowledge is

perceived without effort and learning is associated with entertainment.

However, this can be achieved only in certain situations and cannot become

a universal principle of learning. Besides, if knowledge and skills are acquired

without any effort they are unlikely to be adequately appreciated. And

moreover, this passive ("playing a game") approach to life cannot help to form an

active attitude towards real-life problems. To develop personality one must learn

how to overcome hardships, to focus on problems, to make efforts to achieve

goals but not "to live an easy life." Man is to some extent the result of own game

but to a much greater extent is the result of his labor.

One of the motives for using gamification is also the fact that educational

game technologies can become quite an effective means of monitoring

schoolchildren / students (via organizing teamwork too). However, when


students realize this fact (and sooner or later they do) their educational

motivation can decrease.

The problem of proving the efficiency of using gamification in modern

education should be viewed in the context of a broader and deeper approach to

educational motivation which is formed under the influence of the state of

society in general and which depends on a complex of social, economic and

spiritual factors.

Problems of using games in education

While game technologies are developing, a number of specific educational

problems arise which require theoretical understanding. One of them is

visualization of education. According to T.V.Semenovskikh as video games are a

dominant form of entertainment they serve "a powerful means of students’

motivation" (Semenovskikh, n. d.). Rapid development of visual technologies

helps man rely on visual thinking and visual perception conveying "information

via images and graphics" (movies, presentations, simulation games). This will

help to quickly learn much more information than before. Another good thing is

that "linear thinking" will be less engaged as fewer texts have to be read

(Semenovskikh, n. d.). However, man’s intellectual development is connected

with abstract reasoning. Therefore, in our opinion, this approach will lead to

problems of developing abstract reasoning because it will not be properly

trained. Experts say that "pictures and diagrams are becoming more and more

popular" as they "reduce the time of perception” (Gorshenin, et. al. 2015, p. 91).

However, being in demand does not mean that games can be useful in education

too. Besides, it is not only time that is important but also the character of

information perception (e.g., adequacy), the ability to comprehend it at the

abstract level. Neither can we agree with the opinion that visual technology is

appropriate to the nature of "human thinking as man thinks, first of all, in

images" (Gorshenin, et. al. 2015, p.91).

Man created the modern information civilization thanks to abstract

reasoning. However, the supporters of this approach admit that game

technologies develop, first of all, visual thinking. In our opinion, this is a

consequence of simplifying educational material. Indeed, visual images are

easier to grasp than concepts. For example, it is usually more difficult to read

because it is not enough to passively perceive palpable images of reality as one

must also try to imagine a situation as a whole.

Our notion about something has more abstract elements than our

perception. The ability to understand what this or that notion is can even

become an unsolvable problem in learning which is based only on visualization.

If we use visualization without any limitations which are determined by the

degree of development of students’ abstract reasoning, it will damage the future

development of abstract reasoning. We should also note that to a person with

more or less well developed abstract reasoning and the system of values and

ideologies, visualization can hardly be harmful but will let him learn greater

amount of information at a greater speed. Another important thing is that

excessive use of games makes participants of the educational process get used to

performing a set of regular and rapid but usually meaningless actions. These

actions do not demand much thinking about and this may also result in

worsening the skills of analytical, complex thinking.


Introducing games in education is accompanied by the problem of the

changing role of the teacher. Long before gamification appeared I.V.Bulgakov

had written that a man of a new type was coming into existence - "Homo

Gamerus" (“The man playing games" for whom the basic thing in life is playing

games), and games are so important for teenagers that they can do very well

without a teacher in the educational process (Bulgakov 2000, p. 121). Some

authors believe that gamification changes the role of the teacher – he/she and a

student "are becoming partners" (Gorshenin, et. al. 2015, p. 90). The teacher is

now an advisor and consultant helping students to understand the process of

learning itself. It is not the teacher who is the most active participant in the

education process but a student, and now the ultimate goal for the teacher is to

create necessary conditions for students to be active. The teacher controls and

organizes the educational process, monitors the time and fulfillment of the study

plan, gives advice and helps students in difficult cases (Karpenkova 2015, p.

562). Games really give schoolchildren / students a chance to demonstrate how

active they can be. But this activity is productive only when students have a

well-formed motivation to learn and get educated. Only in this case partnership

relations between a teacher and a student can be established. It is an

indisputable fact that the personality of the teacher is important whatever

teaching method is used.

One of the problems of gamification is a fundamentally different attitude to

mistakes if compared with the traditional education (Karpenkova 2015, p. 563).

The possibility to easily correct them is seen as a major advantage of

gamification (Kubekov, et. al. 2015, p.76). In the traditional education students

are punished for mistakes and are rarely praised for offering correct solutions,

so students are more concerned with grades but not the knowledge they get or

contents of the materials they learn (Karpenkova 2015, p. 563). Some

researchers believe that a student is no longer afraid of making mistakes and

"focuses on learning" because in the game you can make mistakes as many times

as it happens (Gorshenin, et. al. 2015, p. 91). Unfortunately, this outcome is not

guaranteed as it is quite possible that a student can become focused not on

learning but on playing a game. At the same time, no matter how useful a game

is for the development of certain skills, it remains a virtual reality. As a result,

repeating the same game situations students develop an understanding that

sooner or later the goal will be achieved. Besides, they believe that it can be

possible "to replay" a real life situation the way they replayed a game (it makes

a student feel less responsibility for real life situations). However, life and game

are different things and in it consequences of mistakes cannot be so easily

corrected. There is some responsibility in the world of games too but it is

absolutely different from responsibility in real life. One of the main difficulties of

gamification is the student’s reduced responsibility because he has an idea that

"all this is just a game” (Karpenkova 2015, p. 564).

Therefore, it is a very valuable skill to be able to correct mistakes in real life

but not only in the game. Much less important is the correction of mistakes by

selecting different options in educational games. In real life it is impossible and

to achieve success one is to be patient (although this does not guarantee

success). It is also noted that an important positive aspect of gamification is lack

of punishment and so there is no "fear of taking a wrong step" (Karpenkova

2015, p. 563). However, fear is a natural and necessary emotion which keeps a

person from dangerous actions (reasonable fear, of course). So, an individual or a


specialist in any area can hardly be considered well prepared for life if he has

never experienced any fear. Besides, obsession with virtual reality has a

negative impact on man’s ideological sphere. In virtual reality you can have an

illusion of being able to satisfy your demands even violating social norms and

values. This allows you to avoid taking life challenges and does not help to form

beliefs, ideals and principles. Therefore, students develop casual attitude to

learning and do not treat it as a preparation for adult life and professional

activities. However, when they learn, schoolchildren and especially students

understand the difference between the game and reality. They will rather

perceive learning as a game but are unlikely to take life as a game. This

approach stimulates the behaviour principle "One must live without effort"

which cannot motivate a person who sets serious goals in life.

According to some researchers, one of the positive effects of gamification is

additivity of educational process when students become "psychologically

dependent", and "are involved into it seriously and emotionally" (Diakonov 2016,

p. 144). According to K.M.Kapp, additivity is achieved by using points and

scores, passing levels and "fear of losing the achieved level" by being fined (Kapp

2012, p. 49). Gamification techniques will make the boring process of

transmitting skills and educational information "an additive educational

process", will help to overcome "the natural resistance of students" and to spend

less effort on presenting educational material (Kapp 2012; p. 49). In other words,

the author relies only on the game motivation but the ultimate goal of

gamification is still in acquiring educational competencies, not game

achievements. Besides, many students are already psychologically dependent on

games, which may result in increased game addiction, not learning addition.

And the motivation which is formed by games is "superficial" (Gorshenin, et. al.

2015, p. 91), though some scientists believe that strong motivation can also be

formed and a student “becomes enthusiastic” about learning (Gorshenin, et. al.

2015, p. 91). However, there is a possibility that this enthusiasm is not only for

learning but for playing games, and students will no longer "accept the

educational process if no games are played", they will be more concerned with

getting awards and various kinds of rewarding without understanding

educational goals of games they play and no inner motivation to learn will be

formed (Salin 2015, p.125). It is the student’s value of learning motivation which

will get him involved in the educational process. This motivation which is a

consequence of the development of man’s values and ideologies enables to form

educational competences.

Special attention should be paid to specific requirements to game

technologies so that their use in education could be justified and effective.

K.Werbach, for example, states the need for a balanced application of games.

Gamification does not mean "transforming everything into a game," it should not

take you away from real life but it should help students to make their real life

experience better, define its key points and add extra motivations (Werbach, n.

d.). We should speak only "about gamification elements: the game should not

overshadow the main educational contents; like any other means it cannot be a

universal learning method" (Werbach, n. d.). As M.A.Alchebaev and

A.A.Gaidukov point out that the game should be of practical significance, should

improve understanding of clearly formulated and achievable goals, should

develop cooperation between a student and a teacher, should stimulate balanced

feedback between them, should create good mood, develop students’ self-reliance


and self-organization, it shouldn’t be imposed upon students but should be

interesting for them (Alchebaev and Gaidukov 2014, p. 223). The game should be

an accurate reflection of reality, its purpose should coincide as much as possible

with learning objectives. The efficiency of using games in education depends on

how naturally and well game technologies are integrated into the general

education strategy (Gabitova and Frolova 2014, p. 254). In this context, it is

admitted that gamification cannot be regarded as a universal method of

organizing the educational process and its methods cannot replace knowledge

(Lee and Hammer 2011; Karpenkova 2015, p.564). It is noted that gamification

is not intended to change the contents of learning but only to use a new form of

presenting educational material; and this is what should increase the motivation

of learning (Gabitova and Frolova 2014, p. 254). One cannot say that game

technologies are the only means that absolutely affect the success of learning,

they are just one of the means of education. And these means, according to

Manuel Castells, can be good or bad depending on the way they are used because

they are "a continuation of our own self" (Castells 2003, p.217). Game

technologies are useful for students well motivated to learn. B. P. Diakonov

admits that to implement gamification worldwide it is necessary to test it "to

prove its efficiency and effectiveness" (Diakonov 2016, p. 147).

It is necessary to distinguish between the game as a means of presenting

concrete material for its better comprehension while learning, and the game as a

form of organizing the educational process. In both cases, game technologies are

quite applicable but not every material should be presented in form of a game

and not into every educational process games can be necessarily brought (it

depends on specific circumstances). For example, the result of using game

technologies may not be the same when applied to different subjects / disciplines

and different themes. Games seem difficult to be used in Philosophy classes as

Philosophy is quite an abstract science. But in the History classroom where most

of educational material is concrete facts game elements can be well used.

However, the ultimate goal of History as a subject is forming abstract notions

explaining historical events. So it is obvious that abstractions cannot be formed

on the basis of visual aids only and other teaching forms are also necessary

which will help to develop logical thinking. It should be mentioned that the

possibility of forming mostly visual thinking using game technologies

(diminishing the possibility to develop abstract reasoning) is a serious problem.

Besides, under certain circumstances game technologies may motivate students

not to learn but to play games (students can even become game-addicted). In

this context students can become more interested in getting good grades but not

proper education and education materials (at best), and the worst case is when a

student becomes disappointed about game techniques and learning in general.

Gamification changes the role of the teacher and students in the

educational process making schoolchildren / students more active. Besides, game

technologies make it possible for a student to make mistakes and to correct

them. These positive aspects of games can be used to form necessary

competencies in students. However, there is a problem of transferring skills of

schoolchildren / students formed in virtual games into real life. Gamification

should not be a goal itself, it should not be treated as a general tendency but

rather as an important form of learning which enhances the possibility of

getting positive results from learning.


Conclusion

The use of game forms in education provides great opportunities for both

teachers and students. However, the impact of game technologies on success of

the educational process is complex as they are only one of teaching means.

Evaluating them, it is necessary to take into consideration the character and

degree of the development of values and ideologies of a schoolchild / student and

social conditions in which the system of education exists.

Gamification is a complex of educational and upbringing resources

applicable for students who already developed beliefs, behaviour principles and

ideals at the previous stages of socialization. Therefore, the success of using

games in education depends to a large extent on the values and world outlook of

a student in specific social conditions.

It is much easier to teach a schoolchild / student using game techniques if

he has a motivation to learn rooted in his system of values and ideologies which

were formed in childhood in the process of upbringing, communication with

parents and school and in more or less beneficial social conditions. If a student

focuses on personal development which is determined by the system of values

with stable positive beliefs, principles and ideals it will result in increased

efficiency of using gamification in education.

Developing world outlook helps a student to understand the role of game as

only a substitute for real life, as a skill-training instrument, to have a clear

picture what real life is and what game is. The reason for possible failures in

using games in education should be sought for not in games themselves but in

negative processes in those social structures which determine the way a

student’s world outlook is formed. One should not over-emphasize the role of

games treating them as the only general tendency in education. However, games

can help students to absorb the material better and can make learning more

efficient.

An important condition for successful use of game technologies is the

development of a motivation to learn on the basis of stable ideologies in a

teenager / student which have a positive social and individual orientation.

Stable principles and ideologies and students’ orientation on acquiring

educational competencies have a beneficial effect on learning results. On the

contrary, treating education as a formal process, the result of which is only an

officially issued certificate but not personal development greatly reduces the

beneficial impact of gamification.

The extent of using games depends on a student’s level of development, his

social environment and the subject (theme) which is studied with the help of

games. An individual with positive and stable life values and principles is more

capable of reflection and so can more adequately treat the role of games. It is of

social importance that forming beliefs, ideals and principles of young people

should result in their having a real and unchangeable need to get real

educational competences. Only this can help to increase the efficiency of

gamification in education.

References

Alchebaev, М.А. and Gaidukov, А.А., (2014). Gamification or mystification? Mir transporta, 3: 220 –

225.

Avedon, E. and Sutton, S.E. (1971). The Study of Games. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 530.

Borzenko, A.A., (2016). Games as a means of increasing motivation to learn. European research, 3

(14): 79-81.


Bulgakov, I.V., (2000). Homo Gamer. Psychology of computer games. Moscow: Klass, pp. 164.

Burke, B. (2012). Gamification 2020: What Is the Future of Gamification? Date Views 20.06.2016

https://www.gartner.com/doc/2226015/gamification--future-gamification

Castells M., (2003). The Internet Galaxy. Moscow: Canon Press, pp. 328.

Chorost, M., (2011). World Wide Mind. Moscow: Eksmo, pp. 285.

Chetverikova, O.N. (2015). Enemy has come from the rear. Part 1. Reformation of education and

upbringing in Russia through the geopolitics prism. Date Views 22.06.2016

http://www.odigitria.by/2015/02/24/vrag-zashyol-s-tyla-perestrojka-obrazovaniya-i-vospitaniya-

v-rossii-skvoz-prizmu-geopolitiki-chast-i-chetverikova-olga/

Cluev, D. (n. d.). Gamification is dead. What follows? Date Views 14.06.2016

http://gamehaze.ru/gamification-is-dead/

Demchenko, T.S., (2016). Gamification in higher education system: research urgency. New

generation, 9: 55 – 60.

Deterding, S., Kahled, R., Nacke, L. and Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a Definition. CHI.

pp. 1–4.

Deterding, S., Kahled, R., Nacke, L. and Dixon, D., (2011). From Game Design Elements to

Gamefulness: Defining Gamification. MindTrek ’11 Proceedings of the 15th International

Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, ACM, pp. 9–15.

Diakonov, B.P., (2016). Gamification in asynchronous learning. Historical, social and educational

thought, 8(1/1): 143–147.

Duggan, K. and Shoup, K. (2013). Business Gamification For Dummies, For Dummies. Softcover -

Wiley & Sons Ltd. Hoboken, New Jersey, pp. 312.

Eliseeva, E.V., Zlobina, S.N., Zyateva, L.A., Malinnikov, S.G. and Shcherba, I.I. (2015). Gamification

in modern higher education institutions. Modern educational technology: Pedagogy and

Psychology: Monograph. Book 16. Novosibirsk: Publishing house CDSC (Center for Developing

Scientific Cooperation). pp. 53 – 72.

Emel’yanenko, V.D. (2016). World outlook and computer games addiction: in search for

interconnection. Philosophical Problems of information technologies and cyberspace, 1 (11): 45-

64.

Frumkin, K.G. (2010). Global changes in thinking and the fate of text culture. Ineternum, 1: 20-26.

Gabdulakhov, V.F. and Galimova, E.G. (2014). Digital pedagogics and gamification in university

education. Education and self-development. 4 (42): 37 – 43.

Gabitova, A.R. and Frolova, I.A., (2014). Gamification in education as an innovative aspect of

developing research activities of younger scientists. Bulletin of Kazan Technological

University, 17(16): 252-254.

Gartner, S. B. (2015). More Than 50 Percent of Organizations That Manage Innovation Processes

Will Gamifycation Those Processes. Analysts Explore the Role of Enterprise Architects in

Gamification at Gartner Enterprise Architecture Summit 2011, May 9-10, London, and June

22-23 in San Diego.

Gamification: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. (2015). IGI Global. pp. 2211.

Grechkina, E.N. and Bogatyreva, O.V., (2016). Reformation of Russian education through the

globalization prism: philosophic thoughts. Society: Philosophy, History, Culture, 5: 41 – 44.

Gorshenin, V.P., Korolenko, A.N. and Stepicheva, A.B., (2015). Modern context of global education

space and gamification in distance learning. Schumpeter reading, 1: 89-95.

Herger, M. (2012). Enterprise Gamification. Date Views 12.06.2016 http://enterprise-

gamification.com/index.php?lang=en

Jackson, M., (2009). Distracted. N. Y. Prometheus Books, pp. 298.

Karpenkova, N.V., (2015). Using gamification in teaching students. Book of articles of participants of

the International research and practice conference. Arzamas: “Rastr-NN”, pp. 561 – 564.

Kapustina, E.V., (2015). Gamification as a means of increasing motivation and activating students

into learning. Materials of XXIV International research and practice conference. The center of

scientific thought, pp. 47-51.

Kapp, K.M., (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and

Strategies for Training and Education. Implications and Importance to the Future of Learning.

Pfeiffer Publ., pp. 336.

Korobanova, Zh.V., Surkova, D.A., Khan, I.A. and Yarovenko, N.S. (2014). Educational technologies

of gamification in higher education institutions and “clip thinking” of the modern youth .

Formation Of Common Cultural And Professional Competences Of The Financier. Мoscow:

OOO "Izdatelstvo" Sputnik + ", pp. 124-131.

Kubekov, B.S., Krivitsky, V.A. and Naumenko, V.V., (2015). Gamification in modern education.

Possible applications. Advantages and disadvantages. Theoretical and applied aspects of

modern science, 7 – 9: 74 – 77.


Lee, J. J. and Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic

Exchange Quarterly. 15(2). Date Views 12.06.2016

https://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/resources/upload/Lee-Hammer-AEQ-2011.pdf

Lee, J. J. (2015). Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academia.edu. Date Views

20.07.2016. www.academia.edu/570970 /.

Lee, S. (2012). The Multiplayer Classroom: Designing Coursework as a Game . Course Technology, a

part of Cengage Learning.

Matveeva, E.D., (2015). Gamification: a new concept in education. Materials of the II All-Russia

research and practice Internet-conference with elements of the school for younger scientists.

Perm State University, pp. 42-47.

Mazelis, A.L., (2013). Gamification in e-learning. The quality of training through dialogue system of

higher education and professional environment. Vladivostok: VSUES. pp. 4.

McGonigal, J., (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change

the World. Penguin Books, pp. 416.

Muratova, L.V. and Muratova, A.S., (2015). Gamification: best results at lower cost. The Unity of

science: international scientific periodical journal, 4: 40-43.

Nelson, M. J. (2012). Soviet and American precursors to the gamification of work . Proceedings of the

16th International Academic MindTrek Conference. Date Views 17.07.2016

https://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_emulation

Nitsa, A.L. (2012). Gamification in education. Greenhouse Social Technologies. Date Views

14.03.2016 https://te-st.ru/2012/12/21/gamification-education/

Orlova, O.V. and Titova, V.N., (2015). Gamification as a way of organization of learning. TSPU

Bulletin, 9(162): 60 – 64.

Plyusnina, M.A. (n. d.). Computer simulation as an interactive form of learning. Surgut State

University.

Polutina, N.S., (2010). Research trends in computer game psychology. Integration of education, 4: 93-

97.

Reiners, T. and Wood, L.C., (2015). Gamification in Education and Business. Switzerland, Springer

International Publ., pp. 712.

Salin, А., (2015). On criticizing the project of gamification. Logos, 25,1(103): 100 – 129.

Salin, A. (n. d.). Gamification: how it works Date Views 24.07.2016)\ http://thezis.ru/geymifikatsiya-

kak-eto-rabotaet.html

Small, G. and Vorgan, G., (2011). iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alternation of the Modern

Mind. Moscow: Kolibri, Azbuka-Attikus, pp. 352.

Schaffhauser, D. (2014). 5 Skills That Games Teach Better Than Textbooks . Education World. Date

Views 08.06.2016 http://thejournal.com/Articles/2014/11/05/5-Skills-That-Games-Teach-Better-

Than-Textbooks.aspx?Page=1

Shirshova, L. (n. d.). Gamification in education first hand: answers of professor MIT. Date Views

19.07.2016 https://newtonew.com/discussions/gejmifikacija-obrazovanija-iz-pervyh-ust-

otvechaet-professor-mit

Semenovskikh, T.V. (n. d.). “Clip thinking” - a phenomenon of modern time. Date Views 27.04.2016.

http://jarki.ru/wpress/2013/02/18/ 3208.

Trends of the Future: distributed robot production, gamification, sport Internet. Date Views

24.08.2016 http://hab-rahabr.ru/post/153797/

Vorobyev, A. (2015). Techniques and advantages of e-learning gamification. Web-site of the group e-

Learning PRO Date Views 23.05.2016.

http://www.elearningpro.ru/profiles/blogs/2187575:BlogPost:125145

Werbach, К. (n. d.). Gamification. Coursera. Date Views 09.06.2016.

https://www.coursera.org/browse?source=deprecated_spark_cdp

Werbach, K. and Hunter, D., (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your

business. Philadelphia. Wharton Digital Press, pp. 145.

Zichermann, G. and Linder, J. (2012). The Gamification Revolution: How Leaders Leverage Game

Mechanics to Crush the Competition. McGraw-Hill, pp. 256.

man’s values and ideologies as a basis of gamification · 2017-02-27 · literature on this...

Documents